Folks lose their minds because Obama refuses to turn this into a cultural religious battle with good Christians on one side and bad Muslims on the other side.
So, you have a small but deadly group of extremists. This small but deadly group of extremists has success in convincing some others that the West, and in fact other "wannabe" Muslims are really out to get Islam. They are trying to convince even more people to join their cause. If they fail in this cause, their movement wilts, because unlike other, surface similar groups, they need to hold territory and establish a permanent area of control...which means they need people.
To counter this threat you could:
A) Attack them with weapons while also simultaneously disavowing their central argument that such attacks are a war on Islam.
B) Do the same while playing into their central argument that you are really warring against Islam.
Which option is the better practical option to proceed that does the most damage to said group? Attacking them while denying their main theme, or attacking them and reinforcing that theme?
IOW, the point is, get rid of ISIS. You do that by both attacking them directly, and removing the motivation of others to join them as much as possible. Basic counterinsurgency tactics straight from Petraeus et al.
So, you have a small but deadly group of extremists. This small but deadly group of extremists has success in convincing some others that the West, and in fact other "wannabe" Muslims are really out to get Islam. They are trying to convince even more people to join their cause. If they fail in this cause, their movement wilts, because unlike other, surface similar groups, they need to hold territory and establish a permanent area of control...which means they need people.
To counter this threat you could:
A) Attack them with weapons while also simultaneously disavowing their central argument that such attacks are a war on Islam.
B) Do the same while playing into their central argument that you are really warring against Islam.
Which option is the better practical option to proceed that does the most damage to said group? Attacking them while denying their main theme, or attacking them and reinforcing that theme?
IOW, the point is, get rid of ISIS. You do that by both attacking them directly, and removing the motivation of others to join them as much as possible. Basic counterinsurgency tactics straight from Petraeus et al.
